IT shocked the nation when he was arrested back in 1998. Such was the influence he had that a major split in support took place the minute he formed his 'Reformasi' movement.

Suddenly, families started arguing, friends debated, colleagues got into heated discussions, either in defending him or defending the move to sack and arrest him.

It is undeniable that Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has been a tour de force in the country, however whether he is a good or bad force, somehow that still remains to be seen. What exactly is Anwar fighting for?

From the first time he took to the streets crying out 'Reformasi' and declaring that he had been wronged, one thing for certain, what he did would go on to change the political landscape in Malaysia like it has never before.

During the time he was in prison after his sodomy indictment, the political party he started, Keadilan, which later became Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR), was helmed by his wife and daughter, Datin Seri Dr Wan Azizah and Nurul Izzah Anwar.

However, former Prime Minister, Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, in an act of goodwill released Anwar from prison before his sentence finished.

From then on, Anwar began his 'crusade' so to speak to become the next Prime Minister. He made several promises about taking over Putrajaya before the 13th general election, however nothing materialised.

The support he garnered from the public, however, continued to grow. Calling themselves Pakatan Rakyat (PR), the marriage of convenience that came about between PKR, PAS and DAP made Anwar and the coalition he is leading, stronger.

This was further proven when they garnered more popularity votes in the 13th general election, compared to Barisan Nasional (BN) who retained the ruling government, after winning on parliamentary seats.

What is obvious is that, Anwar and his coalition are popular amongst the rakyat. However, this still leaves the question of what exactly is he fighting for unanswered.

If Anwar is truly devoted in his fight for free and fair elections, must he be at the helm? After 15 years, is the fight to seat himself in Putrajaya still relevant? Wouldn't it be better to advise and pass the baton to someone else?

While it can be seen that Pakatan Rakyat is popular amongst the rakyat, with more than 50,000 attendees at any one of their rallies, it begs the question of are those people attending to support Anwar or the cause?

If they are supporting the cause, then it would be high time for Anwar to sit back and probably groom someone else to take his place, for instance his own flesh and blood Nurul Izzah Anwar.

It is obvious that Nurul Izzah, having been dubbed Puteri Reformasi, will be a hit with the rakyat who are crying out for new blood. Most of those supporting Pakatan Rakyat, and want BN toppled, are those who want to see the old dogs gone.

Isn't Anwar himself an old dog?

Having been apart of BN himself before his arrest and sacking in 1998, Anwar is actually far from being the new blood the public is craving for.

Going back to the question of what is Anwar fighting for, one can't help but think of two important figures in the annals of world history; Reverend Dr Martin Luther King Jr and Mahatma Gandhi.

Reverend King fought for black equality during the African American Civil Rights Movement, and it is understood that he would go to the ends of the earth to see his people get the same treatment as any other race.

The blacks were oppressed. They couldn't get on the same bus as white folks. They couldn't drink from the same water fountain. They couldn't sit at the same table. Their houses were torched by the Ku Klux Klan. Their children lived in fear.

Reverend King fought for equality and went on to conduct rallies to garner support for his cause. He fought to his last dying breath.

This was the same case for Gandhi. Like King, Gandhi employed non-violent civil disobedience. He led India to independence from the British and was a prominent figure in Indian nationalism. He fought to free his people.

Gandhi too persevered till his last dying breath.

This brings us to Anwar's perseverance. While his persistence in taking over Putrajaya can match the persistence of King and Gandhi, are their fights on the same level?

Malaysia has its fair share of problems, however we are not oppressed like the blacks in America were. We are no longer colonized.

The fight for free and fair elections and the fight to end corruption does not necessarily need to be helmed by one Anwar Ibrahim.

Before GE13, Anwar promised that if he lost in the elections, he would retire from politics and move on to a career of lecturing.

That has yet to happen. Anwar has instead opted to conduct one rally after another, apart from attempting to boycott the parliament's opening session next week.

What is he hoping to achieve through these rallies? If enough people gather on the streets, BN will willingly hand over Putrajaya to Pakatan Rakyat?

If they believe the election was tainted, the best course of action would be to take it to the courts and sort it out there.

If that fails, serve the rakyat and wait for the next general election. With that said, must Anwar still be the one leading the fight?

"Indonesia's president has accepted a statesmanship award from a U.S. interfaith foundation that says it hopes to encourage him to promote freedom of worship and tolerance in the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation." -- Associated Press, May 30, 2013 Irony of ironies. "RI fails to protect religious minorities, says US report," from The Jakarta Post, June 18 (thanks to Phillip):

The US Department of State's 2012 Report on International Religious Freedom has revealed that the Indonesian government has failed to properly address the banning and assault of religious minority groups. The annual report was released by the US Embassy in Jakarta on Tuesday.

"The Indonesian government honors the freedom to choose religion but fails to prevent violent acts toward religious minority groups," a statement in that report said as quoted by Antara news agency. The report said the Indonesian government respected six official religions but that some religious sects were deemed as deviant by clerics. The report also said that the police tended to be lenient on hard-liners that tried to implement laws that limited religious freedom.

"Police failed to protect religious minority groups when they are being attacked by hard-liners," the report said.

"Concerns over online Qur'an teaching as ex-Pakistan militants instruct pupils," by Jon Boone in The Guardian, June 17:

With his track record as a member of the political arm of a banned terrorist organisation, Mian Shahzib is unlikely to ever be given a visa to enter Britain.But that does not stop the jovial 33-year-old from giving British children religious instruction every day from the comfort of his home in Pakistan. He spends hours each night sitting under a fluorescent light in the courtyard of a small mosque in Lahore, peering into a laptop as children first from the Middle East, then Europe and North America spend half an hour after school talking to him over a faltering Skype line. "Put on your cap and wash your hands," he told a 12-year-old boy sitting in a large office chair in his parents' home in Edinburgh.

After checking the boy had memorised various prayers to get him through the day, including a special blessing for exiting and entering the toilet, he got down to business, helping the boy read aloud the classical Arabic of a few verses of the Qur'an. The fact that a hardcore Islamist and long-term follower of the UN-proscribed Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) has daily access to children in the west is likely to fuel concerns about religious radicals spreading their message.

Shahzib's website, Easy Qur'an Memorising, makes no mention of his history and is one of hundreds of such online companies, some of which advertise on satellite channels broadcasting to the Pakistani diaspora. They are part of a little-known outsourcing boom fuelled by parents of Pakistani origin turning to Qur'an teachers in Pakistan. "It's just like a call centre where you are saving a lot of money by getting someone overseas to do it much more cheaply," said Fawad Rana, a property developer in Solihull who has used Qur'an teachers for his two sons for the past three years.

Rana makes an online payment of £30 a month to Faiz-e-Quran, one of the larger online religious education companies, which gets his children three half-hour sessions a week. "And there's the convenience factor – the last thing kids want to do is spend half an hour travelling to the nearest mosque and then not even getting 10 minutes of one-on-one tuition," he said.

Although Faiz-e-Quran say it takes care to scrutinise and monitor all the teachers it employs, the industry is increasingly dominated by one-man operations. After several years working on his business, Shahzib now has about a dozen students aged 12 to 18 scattered all over the world. It's a long way from his past role as an activist with JuD, a Pakistani Islamist organisation known for its holy war against Indian rule in the contested region of Kashmir.

The organisation is on the UN's list of sanctioned organisations because of its alleged association with al-Qaida and is considered a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group behind the 2008 terrorist attacks on Mumbai. As a young man, Shahzib helped prepare young JuD militants before they crossed the line of control that marks the unrecognised border between Pakistani and Indian-held Kashmir. His job was to motivate them with religious teachings and to fill their heads with tales of Indian soldiers raping Muslim women. He was briefly arrested after falling out with his old mentor, Hafiz Saeed, the JuD leader, who lives openly in Lahore but who is subject to a US reward of $10m (£6.36m) for information leading to his arrest. Shahzib believes Saeed has bent to demands from Pakistan's security establishment to rein in militancy in Kashmir.

"I told him to his face that he had betrayed the jihad," he said. These days he still follows the "philosophy" of JuD, even if he is not an active member. He supports the fight against foreign forces in Afghanistan. But he does not think the struggle should be taken to the streets of Britain. "It is completely wrong to attack soldiers in Britain," he said. "If a young man in the UK wants to support jihad I support that, but come to Afghanistan to fight, not the UK." The Guardian was told of other online tutors with radical backgrounds or who are members of extreme or sectarian organisations, but it is impossible to know how widespread the phenomenon is in a completely unregulated industry.

Sultan Chaudri, the owner of Faiz-e-Quran, said his company is at pains to scrutinise all 13 teachers who work for him to ensure radicals are not employed. "All the problems we are seeing in Pakistan and Afghanistan is because these young children get sent to madrasas where no one knows what sort of education they are getting or what kind of indoctrination is taking place." Chaudri, a retired colonel, started his business four years ago his marketing team had to assure parents that there would be no such risk with online teaching.

"They used to say we are not going to get education from a maulvi [Islamic scholar] in Pakistan because he is going to teach bad things to my child," he said. "Parents realise now that there is no risk because they can see the lessons right in front of their own eyes."... Hat tip: Jihad Watch

"Same shit all over the whole civilized world. The future is not good, and our politician's don't care, they are the people that must face trial and take responsibility for destroying our future. Our kids will grow up in a world with the same problems they are facing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Libya and the rest of the Arabic world. Time to wake the fuck up and throw these barbaric fucks back﻿ to the desert! Vote "right wing", that's your only chance to prevent civil war in the future" - Blazzeish (Aussie) Break out the pop corn and bring out the beers, guys. Cheers, bottoms up !!! Australia too is going into the toilet.

A secretive and radical program operating inside an Islamic book store in western Sydney is encouraging young Muslims to get involved in Syria's conflict, a 7.30 investigation has revealed. The bloody conflict in Syria has become a magnet and a new training ground for militants around the world, including Australians. ASIO has estimated around 100 Australians could be currently fighting in Syria, and four Australians have so far died in the conflict.Since it opened just over a year ago, the Al Risalah bookstore has gained a reputation as a centre of Islamic extremism. 7.30 has been investigating Al Risalah's activities and the people behind it, identifying four key sheikhs. All are radical, and all are encouraging Australians to get involved in the Syrian crisis. The most famous of the sheikhs is Abu Suhaib, known to authorities as Bilal Khazal. Khazal is a former baggage handler for Qantas, trained at a military camp in Afghanistan, and was a confidant of Osama bin Laden.

I refer to KJ John's article 'Dog-catching - an art or science? (Malaysiakini, June 18, 2013) It is most unfortunate that the writer was disturbed by stray dogs a couple of times during his walk in Taman Aman park in Petaling Jaya recently. We are, however, relieved and happy

Buddhist and Muslim leaders from South and South East Asian countries including India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Thailand, have gathered in Bangkok, Thailand to address escalating tensions between two communities and potential spread of hatred across the region. The consultation was co-organized by the International Network of Engaged Buddhists (INEB), theInternational Movement for a Just World (JUST), and Religions for Peace (RfP).

We recognize these challenges facing the two communities in the region: 1) Rise of extremism, hate speeches and campaigns and instigation of religious discrimination and violence; 2) Prejudice, fear and hatred caused by ignorance, misperception, stereotyping, negative impact of traditional and social media, simplification and generalization, and communal pressure; 3) Misuse of religion by certain religious, political and other interest groups and individuals; 4) Socio economic dimensions of conflict; and 5) Spillover effects across the region. We are also deeply aware that if Buddhist and Muslim communities can overcome the challenges that confront them, there is tremendous potential for the growth and development of ideas and values that may help to transform the region. For Buddhist and Muslim philosophies embody gems of wisdom about the purpose of life, the position and role of the human being and her relationship with all other sentient beings and nature which could well liberate contemporary civilization from its multiple crises. The young in these two communities in particular should be imbued with these profound ideas and values about life and its meaning. We endorse the Dusit Declaration of 28 June 2006 and commit ourselves to implementing its shared action across the region. Our actions will include intra-religious and inter-religious initiatives in education, advocacy, rapid reaction/solidarity visits/early warning/conflict prevention, constructive engagement with the government, strategic common action, and the effective use of media for positive messages. We will also engage in multi-stakeholder partnerships with governments, inter-governmental bodies such as the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and the United Nations. Dusit Declaration 28 June 2006, Bangkok A Buddhist–Muslim Dialogue on the theme 'Buddhists and Muslims in Southeast Asia working towards justice and peace' was held at the Suan Dusit Place of Suan Dusit Rajabhat University, Bangkok from 26-28 June 2006. It was organised jointly by the Santi Pracha Dhamma Institute (SPDI), International Network of Engaged Buddhists (INEB) and International Movement for a Just World (JUST). A total of 35 participants from eight countries attended the three-day Dialogue. Most of the participants were Buddhists and Muslims from Southeast Asia. A number of them were socially-engaged scholars and grassroots activists. The Dialogue was part of a continuous process of interaction and engagement among individuals from the two communities that had begun ten years ago. Since Buddhists and Muslims constitute the overwhelming majority of Southeast Asia's 550 million people, dialogue aimed at enhancing understanding and empathy between the two communities is vital for peace and harmony in the region. In view of the critical situation in Southern Thailand, the Dialogue on this occasion assumed special 2 significance. Apart from Southern Thailand, the Dialogue also reflected upon issues of concern pertaining to the two communities in a number of other Southeast Asian countries. The Dialogue observed that for most of history relations between Buddhists and Muslims have been relatively harmonious. This has been due largely to a certain degree of mutual respect and a willingness to accommodate differences. This historical backdrop should provide the two communities with the strength and resilience to overcome the challenges that confront them today. In order to overcome these challenges, the Dialogue made the following proposals: 1. Civil society groups should utilise to the fullest various information and communication channels with the aim of increasing knowledge and understanding among Buddhists and Muslims of the principal teachings of their respective religions. Towards this end, SPDI, INEB and JUST undertake to produce a series of monographs in all the Southeast Asian languages which will emphasise the fundamental values and principles in Buddhism and Islam that give meaning to justice and peace. An attempt will also be made to disseminate documentaries on inter-religious harmony that embody real life episodes through various local communication channels as well as via webcasting, podcasting and broadcasting. 2. The mainstream print and electronic media should highlight those moral values and ethical standards that Buddhism and Islam share in common, and at the same time explain differences in doctrines and rituals with sensitivity. It should also regard it as a duty to eradicate stereotypes and prejudices about the two religions. The media should not aggravate inter-religious ties by distorting and sensationalising events that have implications for religious harmony. In this regard, the media should not allow itself to be manipulated by opportunistic politicians and public personalities who abuse religion and nationalism for their own agendas. Civil society groups should establish 'media watches' to monitor media reporting on matters pertaining to inter-religious ties. 3. Schools and universities should introduce and expand courses that seek to promote better understanding between Buddhists and Muslims. Since both religions are committed to justice and peace, it would be worthwhile to increase peace studies programmes at all levels of formal education which focus on non-violence in conflict resolution. School and university curricula should not contain materials which create animosity and perpetuate prejudice between religious and ethnic communities. Civil society groups can help to initiate the development of curricula that reflect Buddhism's and Islam's concern for justice and peace. At the same time, they should monitor school and university curricula to ensure that they do not have a negative impact on inter-religious ties. 4. Buddhist and Muslim religious leaders should within the context of their respective faiths emphasise those ideas and values which conduce towards inter-religious harmony and the celebration of our common humanity. They should discard the tendency to be exclusive in their outlook and consciously cultivate a more inclusive and universal orientation towards religion. Differences between the two religions should not be allowed to create cleavages between their followers. Buddhist monks and the ulama should work together to eliminate prejudices, hatreds and misconceptions that sometimes tend to separate the two communities. Both should adopt a principled position against violence, especially the killing of civilians, and the destruction of places of worship regardless of who or what the target is. In this connection, civil society groups should engage with religious leaders in order to encourage them to become more inclusive and universal in outlook and more positively orientated towards justice and peace. 5. Government leaders and politicians should consciously nurture harmonious relations between Buddhists and Muslims and among people of other faiths through both their public pronouncements and policies. It would be utterly irresponsible of government leaders and politicians to exploit religious sentiments for narrow political gain. They should instead initiate meaningful reforms to existing political structures which would protect and strengthen the rights and dignity of the different religious communities. In certain situations it may even be 3 necessary to devolve political authority through the empowerment of disenfranchised religious communities. To endow substance to the empowerment of the community, government and political leaders should adhere to moral principles such as transparency and accountability. Civil society and the media should not hesitate to expose irresponsible leaders who divide the followers of different religions in pursuit of their self-serving political agendas. Apart from looking at the challenges facing Buddhists and Muslims in Southeast Asia as a whole, the Dialogue also addressed immediate and urgent issues obtaining in specific country situations. The focus was of course on Southern Thailand. 6. In the case of Myanmar, there was concern over attempts by the government to control religious activities to the detriment of the communities in question. The state itself appears to be a purveyor of prejudice against certain religious communities. In Indonesia, the adverse socio-economic and socio-political situation has had a negative impact upon inter-religious relations. Unethical methods of proselytisation by groups within a particular religious community allegedly supported by foreign elements have led to a further deterioration in majority-minority ties. There is also a need for the Malaysian state to be more sensitive to some of the legitimate interests of its non-Muslim minorities. 7. The Dialogue was of the view that the recommendations of the National Reconciliation Commission (NRC) established to study the situation in Southern Thailand deserve the wholehearted support of the nation. It is significant that the NRC declared in unambiguous terms that religion is not the cause of the violence in the South. Injustices arising from the existing judicial process and administrative system and poverty and deprivation are more important contributory factors. Historical and cultural conditions have also played a role in prodding militants to resort to violence which has been met with excessive force by the state. The NRC recommends a whole gamut of measures to overcome the violence. Among them is the establishment of a Peaceful Strategic Administrative Center for Southern Border Provinces (PSAC) which inter alia would seek to promote understanding of the situation and methods to solve the problem in all government agencies among people in the region in Thai society at large and in the international community. There is also a proposal for the state to engage in dialogue with the militants and to act decisively against state officials who abuse their power. There are also other recommendations for solving the unemployment problem, building confidence in the judicial process and improving the education system. 8. The Dialogue also proposed that civil society undertake to ascertain the sentiments of the people in the three troubled provinces of Pattani, Narathiwat and Yala about the form of local governance that they prefer. A petition with at least 50,000 signatures on the form of governance they opt for should then be presented to Parliament for deliberation. This would be in accordance with the Thai Constitution and would reflect the democratic will of the people of the three provinces. 9. Monks and the ulama and Buddhist and Muslim religious leaders in general in the three provinces should make a concerted effort to break down barriers that have created a wide chasm between Buddhists and Muslims and instead build bridges of understanding between the two communities. This process would require honest and sincere introspection on the part of the religious leaders and others about their own flaws and foibles. Critical self analysis should go hand-in-hand with Buddhist-Muslim dialogue in the three Southern provinces. 10. INEB and other NGOs should initiate efforts to form a "People's Watch" comprising both Buddhists and Muslims drawn from various sectors of society whose primary purpose would be to protect and safeguard places of worship, institutions of learning and hospitals among other public institutions. A "People's Watch" would not only ensure the safety and security of these institutions but more significantly, it would also help foster a spirit of togetherness among Buddhists and Muslims. 11. Both Buddhists and Muslims from neighbouring countries especially those representing the influential strata in religion, politics and the media should assist in whatever way possible in the 4 process of dialogue and reconciliation in southern Thailand. More specifically they should try to strengthen a more inclusive and universal approach to both religions informed by values of justice, compassion and forgiveness. Enhancing understanding and empathy between Buddhists and Muslims in Southeast Asia has become imperative in view of the overwhelming power and influence of contemporary global capitalism rooted in global hegemony. The hegemonic power of global capitalism is the new 'religion' which threatens to undermine the universal, spiritual and moral values and world views embodied in Buddhism, Islam and other religions. This is why Buddhists, Muslims and others should forge a more profound unity and solidarity which will be able to offer another vision of a just, compassionate and humane universal civilization. It is with this mission in mind that we hereby announce the launch of a permanent Buddhist-Muslim Citizens' Commission for Southeast Asia. Interactive Dialogue on Actions for Peace and Sustainability Consultative Meeting on Contemporary Issues in Buddhist-­‐Muslim Relations in South and South East Asia 15-­‐17 June, Rissho Kosei-­‐kai, Bangkok Dharma Centre, Bangkok

At the Myanmar Muslims Genocide Awareness Convention at the Veterans Memorial Complex Auditorium, Culver City, CA, on June 9th, 2013. Photo by the author.

Two weekends ago, I had the pleasure of attending the Myanmar Muslims Genocide Awareness Convention in Culver City, CA. I went because I felt it was important to put my presence where my mouth was: as I've indicated here at this blog, the situation in Burma has been incredibly distressing to me, and rather than simply talk about it, I want to be more involved in helping in any small way that I can to get it resolved.

I've certainly tried to be involved, at least from my desk. My friend Joshua Eaton and I collaborated last year on an open letter from Buddhist teachers and scholars and others on Islamophobia that you can read at buddhistletteronislamophobia.wordpress.com. (Joshua authored the letter — though a few of us offered little tweaks and edits — and I put together the website and helped him get the word out and generate signatures.) Not long after I also added my name to "A Joint Buddhist-Muslim Statement on Inter–Communal Violence in Burma", authored by my friend Bill Aiken at SGI-USA. In addition, I took the time to write a substantial post about Engaged Buddhist icon Aung San Suu Kyi's silence and lack of action on this matter back in November, and you can read that post here.

As I explained in that post, for the uninitiated: the Rohingyas are the 800,000 or so Muslims who live in the western part of Burma. They have lived in the area of the Rakhine state for centuries, with much immigration and flight between Burma and Bangladesh — the result of ever-changing political fortunes and conquest. British colonialists encouraged their immigration from Bangladesh in the nineteenth century to boost their agricultural yield in the region. By 1939, the population of Rohingya Muslims (and tensions with local Rakhine Buddhists) had risen to such a degree that a commission of inquiry decided to close the border. Once World War II began, the British left the region, and terrible violence erupted between the two groups. Thousands died. More bloodshed ensued when the Japanese arrived: the Rohingyas were supporters of the Allies — some of them even served as spies for the British — who had promised to support them in their goal of a separate Muslim state. Tens of thousands are believed to have fled to Bangladesh at this point. Following the coup of 1962, more were forced to seek refuge in Bangladesh and Pakistan due to the junta's targeted attacks on the Rohingya community. In 1982, General Ne Win tightened a nationality law in the country and effectively (and illegally) rendered the Rohingyas a stateless people.

Today, the United Nations consider the Rohingyas "one of the most persecuted minorities in the world." Right now there is considerable unrest and devastating violence — dozens are dead, whole villages have been razed, and well over 100,000 have been displaced — in the Rakhine state as a result of what the Agence France-Presse identified as "the rape and murder of a Rakhine women and the revenge mob killing of 10 Muslims." By last fall, Human Rights Watch had issued a report noting that "recent events in Arakan State demonstrate… state-sponsored persecution and discrimination [of the Rohingyas]," including murder, rape, and mass arrest. Reuters released a shocking special investigative report not long after which led with what was essentially a confirmation of HRW's report: "The wave of attacks was organized, central-government military sources told Reuters. They were led by Rakhine nationalists tied to a powerful political party in the state, incited by Buddhist monks, and, some witnesses said, abetted at times by local security forces."

International news agencies and the Buddhist media have since been following the situation closely, and have reported on those in the Burmese sangha who are encouraging violence, as well as those trying to do something to help. It was all this news and information that brought me to the Myanmar Muslims Genocide Convention on June 9th.

Attendees at the Myanmar Muslims Genocide Awareness Convention. Photo by the author.

Attended by easily 250-300 people or more — the crowd grew steadily throughout — the audience at the convention was made of largely persons of South Asian heritage, quite a few of them readily identifiable as Muslim from their hijab, kufi, and other distinctive dress. Things got off to a very strong start with some simple, important points of clarification from host Devin Hennessy. In the context of the event, a "Myanmar Muslim," he stated, was "any Muslim living in the borders of the country, regardless of ethnicity." This is an important point considering that, even though the Rohingya Muslims of the Rakhine state are dominating news coverage right now, there are more than one-hundred ethnic groups in Burma, and many of them have Muslims in their ranks. Hennessy also laid the groundwork for later discussion about proper terminology in this situation by stating that it had "escalated to a genocidal level," and that the word "genocide" was being used specifically because what is happening is "within the criteria" for its use.

These introductory remarks were followed by a dua from a young boy in attendance, and a statement from Culver City Mayor Jeffrey Cooper. As the mayor took to the stage, I braced myself for the usual, rote politician's speech at these sorts of things, only to be very pleasantly surprised: he spoke movingly as both "a Jew and the husband of a Burmese Muslim woman" about how much the cause and the event "hit home" for him. The powerful launch of the event wrapped with the singing of two national anthems: the United States and Burma's.

Before speakers and others rose to speak, the Burmese American Muslims Association presented a video of their own making (with quite a lot of clips from this Al Jazeera English report) to set the stage for anyone unfamiliar with the situation in Burma. Two things in particular struck me in the video presentation, though neither were surprises exactly — just shocking to see explicitly: first, this clip from the BBC, which shows an attack on Muslim-owned gold shop, with police doing nothing and Buddhist monks joining in the violence. Second, the explication of how precisely what's happening in Burma now fits with scholar and Genocide Watch president Dr. Gregory H. Stanton's "8 Stages of Genocide" was arresting.

This segued nicely into Dr. Stanton himself, who presented prepared remarks for the conference via video. He noted that the plight of the Rohingya has been on Genocide Watch's radar for at least two years, and offered useful perspective on what it means to be a Rohingya right now: no ID cards (needed for education and travel), placement in displaced persons camps and forced labor for many, no government employment, limits on marriage/childbirth, coercive situations, and a host of other indignities. Dr. Stanton also highlighted the unique threats to Rohingya refugees and "boat people" fleeing Burma.

In addition, he noted that the attacks on Muslims in Burma had reached the level of genocidal massacre, saying that "the world must speak out." He chastised Aung San Suu Kyi, calling her much-discussed silence as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate "unacceptable." Dr. Stanton also outlined other things that he felt must happen now: (i) Burma's parliament must pass legislation to make the Rohingya citizens with full rights; (ii) displaced persons camps must be dissolved with UN and ASEAN assistance; (iii) authorities must cease all rights violations; and (iv) Bangladesh must stop turning away and pushing back refugees. This was the first of many times that the issue of Rohingya citizenship would come up in the proceedings.

The second instance came with the next speaker, who also spoke via video: Wai Hnin Pwint Thon, campaign officer for Burma Campaign UK. She began by lamenting that the international community still hadn't "gotten the balance right" in terms of praise for Burma's reforms and concrn/penalty over human rights violations. She pointed out that sanctions on Burma had been lifted despite stated benchmarks not being met; by her count, at least eight international laws and treaties are currently being violated by the Burmese government. As many others have pointed out, she reminded the audience that the Rohingya's exclusion from citizenship in particular represents a clear violation of Article XV of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. "Casual racism and intolerance exist and must be acknowledged and confronted," she said. "The Burmese have to decide what it means to be Burmese."

Rev. John Iwohara. Photo by the author.

At this point, after quite a bit of information had been presented, the organizers wisely changed up the pace and brought Rev. John Iwohara of the Venice Hongwanji Buddhist Temple to the stage. "It is difficult to receive a human form," he preached, explaining the Buddhist way of helping others, or, at the very least, "acting less inhumanely." "The pain and loss of losing a loved one is the same for everyone; you don't feel more or less if you're a Buddhist or a Muslim or a Christian or a…" he continued. He invoked the Dhammapada's fifth verse and King Ashoka's experience at the Kalinga War as resources for Buddhists thinking about their approach to this situation. "Let us take this opportunity to exchange anger for love, and violence for beauty. May every life help us find beauty and joy."

The Buddhist representation at the conference continued in a way with Gordon Welty from the U.S. Campaign for Burma, who named Soka Gakkai International president Daisaku Ikeda as "his mentor" during his remarks. A board member of the organization, he offered a helpful blow-by-blow of how things in Burma have escalated to the point of genocide. Like his predecessors, Welty stated that the removal of the 1982 citizenship law was the "first step" in fixing the problem. He also said authorities must "unambiguously" devote themselves to ending mob violence.

A rousing speech by Omar Jubran, executive member of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)-LA, was followed by a presentation of photographs by Matt Rains. Rains has done striking, groundbreaking work photographing Muslims in Burma, and jolted the audience as much with his words as his images. He claimed to have seen "boxes of DVDs from the national government" delivered to monasteries and video halls, which were then used to stir up anti-Muslim sentiment. "This has all been devised by the government," he said flatly.

Naama Haviv, a genocide expert with Jewish World Watch, spoke next about genocide in general. She joked about being the only speaker who didn't know anything about Burma, but added that genocide happens in places where leaders are "habituated" to it. The 1994 genocide in Rwanda, she reminded us, was actually the second (arguably third) such event in that country's history. With such a violent past in the form of the military junta's reign, she felt Burma was definitely a place that we should continue to watch closely.

Statements of support from House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce and Los Angeles Police Department Deputy Chief Michael Downing were read by Hennessy before the mighty Dr. Maung Zarni rose to speak. Buddhist magazine readers will undoubtedly recognize Dr. Zarni, whose name has been coming up a lot lately: his piece "Buddhist Nationalism in Burma" was a feature in one of the most recent issues of Tricycle: The Buddhist Review, and Alex Caring-Lobel interviewed him not long ago for Trike's Awake in the World blog. A Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics, Dr. Zarni received applause when he began his remarks by saying, "I offer my apologies as a Burmese — and a Buddhist at that." Saying he felt compelled to "speak truth at any cost," he castigated his fellow Burmese for "sleepwalking into a genocidal space," adding that "the Buddha himself was not a Burmese, so he would be treated as such an outsider [under current laws and conditions]." Joining the chorus of voices decrying the 1982 citizenship law, he noted that "this problem has come to the Rohingya," and not the other way around.

Dr. Zarni was followed by Dr. Wakkar Uddin (Director General of the All Rohingya Union), Dr. Nora E. Rowley (a humanitarian doctor who works with refugees in Burma), and Htay Lwin Oo (Myanmar Muslims Civil Rights Movement). Dr. Rowley's comments in particular made an impression. She referred to the country's leadership as the "Burman supremacist regime," took the international media to task for "lazily or complicitly" framing the situation as "Rakhine versus Rohingya," and pointed out what Human Rights Watch has observed about the national police force in the country.

A panel discussion and Q&A with Haviv, Dr. Zarni, Dr. Rowley, Dr. Uddin, and Lwin Oo followed. Among the questions addressed was, "Why haven't a majority of Buddhists — who are supposedly against violence — come out to strongly denounce the racist '969 Movement'? Are they silently supporting them?" Dr. Zarni spoke about the false, fear-based narrative of 969, and how it "criminalizes" Islam, and produces a largely complicit Burmese Buddhist population in the country. He then went "on the record" to say that the 969 Movement enjoys "the full backing of the Burmese state." He continued, "In this [current] scenario, the 969 Movement is going to thrive and help destroy the Muslim communities. Therefore, I think it is important for the Buddhist community to wake up to the danger of 969, which is self-destructing the Burmese society."

Dr. Maung Zarni. Photo by the author.

While the question, and Dr. Zarni's response, were helpful, the question that was more important to me personally was, "What can Buddhists, particularly Buddhists outside of Burma, do to help?" So I set out to ask a few of the conference organizers and participants this question.

"Burmese Buddhist is different from other forms of Buddhism," one of the conference's spokesmen, Yousef Iqbal, told me. "So they don't actually look at other Buddhists as ones who can inspire them. Unless you can find a Burmese Buddhist, in Burma's Theravada Buddhist tradition, to say, 'Killing people is wrong and you should not do it,' I'm not sure how much it will do." While he acknowledged the important contributions of Buddhists from other traditions, like Rev. Iwohara, he was clear about what was needed: "More participation from the Theravada, the Burmese Theravada Buddhists. They should be involved, especially those who have spiritual authority."

Iqbal's co-spokesman, Yusman Madha, was more optimistic about the wider Buddhist community. "It would definitely be helpful — definitely," he said in response to my question of whether or not a more pronounced, ecumenical Buddhist response to the situation would be useful. "The teachings of their faith are being flouted by these thugs, and they should now speak up. There are Buddhist monks in Burma speaking up, but they are in the minority."

Dr. Uddin agreed, and told me, "American Buddhist organization can do a lot to influence the [anti-Muslim] monks in Burma. We really believe that American Buddhist leaders can have a tremendous influence on this situation, and teach the heretical Buddhists in Burma that this is not the right path. We would like to open up more of a dialogue with the American Buddhist community, in fact. We've spoken to some monks here in America, and they've been receptive. The vast majority of Burmese Buddhists in America have a totally different vision [then their fellows within Burma]. We can work together — the Rohingya in diaspora and the American Buddhist community."

As we talked, Dr. Uddin added, "We look forward to making these connections with American Buddhists, but we don't have the means and know-how. We don't know who to approach, or how to approach them. We've asked ISNA, the Islamic Society of North America, to help us open up a dialogue. We need to get connected to Buddhist leaders and discuss this and develop strategies."

Before the conference, but even more so after, I was determined to help. After talking with Dr. Uddin about approach, I'd like to say, for whatever it's worth, that I'm happy to help in any way I can to make these connections and get this conversation started. If you're the leader of a Myanmar Muslim group and you'd like assistance making connections, please leave a comment. And if you're a Buddhist leader, please feel free to leave a comment alerting us to anything you might be willing to do or offer.

Dr. Uddin offers a good starting point for us as concerned Buddhists in America: just get Buddhist American leaders to the table with Rohingya in diaspora to talk. At the very least, let's all of us, as Buddhists in America, make sure this happens.

At one point during the conference, it was observed that the event bore the year 2013 in its title, implying that the Myanmar Muslim community is digging in for what portends to be a long struggle. If we as Buddhists in America truly aspire to love all beings the way a mother loves her only child, we need to get to that table with Rohingya leaders and see to it that this doesn't become a yearly event.

"Rohingya Muslims who fled Burma to Bangladesh to escape religious violence, sit in a boat after being intercepted crossing the Naf River by Bangladeshi border authorities." Photo by the Associated Press.

That being said, her rhetoric must be matched with clear and immediate action. In addition, the newly reelected Barack Obama is set to make history later this month by becoming the first sitting U.S. President to visit Burma. If this visit is to have any meaning beyond being an historic first, he will have much to do beyond simply showing up.

Here's what you need to know: The Rohingyas are the 800,000 or so Muslims who live in the western part of Burma. They have lived in the area of the Rakhine state for centuries, with much immigration and flight between Burma and Bangladesh—the result of ever-changing political fortunes and conquest. British colonialists encouraged their immigration from Bangladesh in the nineteenth century to boost their agricultural yield in the region. By 1939, the population of Rohingya Muslims (and tensions with local Rakhine Buddhists) had risen to such a degree that a commission of inquiry decided to close the border. Once World War II began, the British left the region, and terrible violence erupted between the two groups. Thousands died. More bloodshed ensued when the Japanese arrived: the Rohingyas were supporters of the Allies—some of them even served as spies for the British—who had promised to support them in their goal of a separate Muslim state. Tens of thousands are believed to have fled to Bangladesh at this point. Following the coup of 1962, more were forced to seek refuge in Bangladesh and Pakistan due to the junta's targeted attacks on the Rohingya community. In 1982, General Ne Win tightened a nationality law in the country and effectively (and illegally) rendered the Rohingyas a stateless people.

Today, the United Nations consider the Rohingyas "one of the most persecuted minorities in the world." Right now there is considerable unrest and devastating violence—dozens are dead, whole villages have been razed, and over 100,000 have been displaced—in the Rakhine state as a result of what the Agence France-Presse identified as "the rape and murder of a Rakhine women and the revenge mob killing of 10 Muslims."

When I saw Aung San Suu Kyi speak earlier this fall, she lamented that "the rule of law" had not been established immediately following the first instances of violence. But there is some clarity amidst the chaos: that same week Suu Kyi was in Washington, Human Rights Watch issued a report noting that "recent events in Arakan State demonstrate… state-sponsored persecution and discrimination [of the Rohingyas]," including murder, rape, and mass arrest. Then, this week, Reuters released a shocking special investigative report, which led with what was essentially a confirmation of HRW's report:

The wave of attacks was organized, central-government military sources told Reuters. They were led by Rakhine nationalists tied to a powerful political party in the state, incited by Buddhist monks, and, some witnesses said, abetted at times by local security forces.

As if we should not already be troubled by all of this, one part of this sentence should grab the attention of Buddhist readers: "incited by Buddhist monks."

In fact, just last week, Doctors Without Borders reported that "radical Buddhist groups"—led not by nominally Buddhist laypeople, but monks—were preventing their medical professionals from delivering assistance to sick, injured, and otherwise in need Rohingyas. In addition, Joe Belliveau, operations manager for Doctors Without Borders, noted that many of the organization's staff members are now afraid to work in the area. He said, "I've never experienced this degree of intolerance. What we really need is for people to understand that giving medical aid is not a political act." Buddhist monks also recently blocked the opening of a Rakhine office of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a global body that wanted to open an office in the country in order to assist the Rohingyas and contribute to reconciliation efforts. The Democratic Voice of Burma has reported that the All-Arakanese Monks' Solidarity Conference has called for the Burmese to identify Rohingya "sympathizers" so that they may be "targeted and exposed as 'national traitors'" as well. (Reflecting on the monks' behavior even before these incidents, Foreign Policy's William McGowan referred to "Burma's Buddhist chauvinism," and the Bangkok Post's Assistant Editor Sanitsuda Ekachai stated bluntly, "This is racism, not Buddhism.")

This is insanity.

Whatever complications exist (and they certainly do) in this situation, there is absolutely no universe in which these sorts of things should not be categorically deplored in the strongest possible terms by someone in Suu Kyi's position. Indeed, "the Lady" herself has unique power to effect outcomes here: many of these same monks are those who rose up against the junta in 2007's "Saffron Revolution." On September 22nd of that year, the day the monks began marching, their first stop was to Suu Kyi's home, where she was then under house arrest. They offered blessings to her, but she, in effect, also offered her own blessing to their efforts.

If Suu Kyi were to publically ask the monks to cease and desist in their anti-Rohingya efforts now, there's no guarantee that that would quell them. However, it would almost certainly deal them a crippling public relations blow, given the history of the relationship between "the Lady" and the Sangha. They would lose any implicit seal of endorsement from Suu Kyi, and with that undoubtedly much of their support.

Suu Kyi's sacrifices on behalf of her country are some of the most selfless and inspiring acts this world has ever known. She has shown through staggering example what human beings are capable of when they set their sights on the highest ideals. For someone who has been so doggedly, movingly stubborn on behalf of others, her silence up to now has been very disappointing. She is quite right to point out that there has been violence on both sides, but wrong to "not take sides," as she put it. Even that language is somewhat problematic, for it implies a false equivalency: as imperfect and unskillful as the past actions of some may have been, there's no denying that the Rohingyas, as a stateless people, have comparatively limited means (to put it mildly) by which to advocate for themselves. "Illegal immigration," as she puts it, may well be happening and need attention; but she must also contend with the fact that even Rohingyas who have never crossed a border in their lives are not viewed as legitimate citizens by the Burmese government.

As her country's moral touchstone—and very rightly so—"the Lady" has a special ability to help here, particularly with the monks. As a serious Buddhist practitioner herself, she might remind those monks who advocate fighting fire with fire of what it says in the Dhammapada:

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred.

"He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred.

Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

Remembering their own Buddhist heritage might help the monks take the lead in a different way: as agents of reconciliation in a part of their country that has been plagued by hate and violence for such a terribly long time. "The Lady" might help them get there.

And President Obama might give her and the Burmese government a helpful nudge during his upcoming visit to the country. (It looks as though he will.)

Of course, he will need our encouragement to keep meaningful pressure on the country regarding the Rohingyas. Buddhist American leaders have already spoken out through twopetitions (both of which I signed and helped with). You can make your voice heard through the petitions to President Obama that are currently circulating from Amnesty International and United to End Genocide. (Each takes only a few seconds to fill out.)

It has been ages I know! If you have been to this blog for the past 2-3 weeks you would probably see really weird entries with nothing but just one pic. Well that actually updates from my Instagram. I wasn't able to update long entries because we went on THE MOST AWESOME VACATION EVER!

We had the most terrific adventures, meet wonderful people, enjoyed beautiful scenery, savored delicious food, shop till we drop, had our first Disneyland thrill and fun and so much more… From 23 May until 5 June 2013, Azman and I took our kids, Miki and Rafa to Europe. It was a perfect vacation!

From KL we flew to Frankfurt, Germany via Dubai. In Germany we visited my sister, Shanaz and brother in law, Abdullah who lives in Wolfsburg. With them, we travelled to Berlin, Stuttgart and later to Paris, France. From Paris we stopped for awhile at Brussels, Belgium in our way to Amsterdam, the Netherlands. From Netherlands we went back to Germany, back to Wolfsburg and that's when we visited the city of Hannover before we went back to KL from Hamburg. Altogether we traveled to 4 capital cities of 4 European countries in about 2 weeks. And the best thing about it, we had all the adventures as one big happy family!

Being the blogger that I am, of course I would like to jot down all the stories from our first European trip before they were all gone from my grey matter. It would probably take more than 5 entries, full of pictures and great memories for us and the kids to read later.

But where should I start? Ok, how about in KL…

On 22 May, a day before our flight to Germany, Miki got sick. We were doing last minute shopping at Midvalley at around 8pm when he suddenly vomited the floor. And then he vomited again and again and again. He also had a temperature. At midnight we went to KPMC. I told the doctor she must make my son well for our flight that was less than 18 hours hours. I was nervous, worried, helpless and extremely sad looking at sickly baby. The doctor must have given him something strong because the last time he puked was at 4 am and that was the last. He was still very-very weak however, we had to spoon feed him and constantly wiping his body with damp towel to keep the temperature down. By noon 23 May, his temp was back to normal but he was so weak he was hardly sitting down, but just lying helplessly not saying a word. He cut my holiday mood by 80%.

But we went anyway,and in the cab to the airport, he slept soundly, in the airport he laid down on Rafa's stroller.

"Bye! Miki and Rafa are going to Germany!" Look at Miki.. see how he can't even hold his peace sign together.

And then we had to take the aerotrain.

A train? He said. And suddenly he jumped off the stroller and start jumping around, asking question one after another. And once we boarded the A380, Miki saw how huge it is, how all the seats have screen with hundreds of movies and tv shows and games that he could play; he was well again 100 %! As if the air in the cabin contained some magic antibiotic that cures sick people within seconds. All I wanted to say was – "KO NI BETUL SAKIT KE APA MIKI?" haishh…Sakit jiwa Mummy risaukan ko!

See above pic, the three of us in the KLIA aerotrain. See how Miki is suddenly looking all fine and his mulut potpetpotpet aishhhhh… Rafa was also doing his thang – orang Perak said, mengelejat or squirming! For no reason!

From KL we flew 7 hours to Dubai. Later I will write about traveling with baby and some things to ensure ease and comfort. At Dubai, the transit took 5 -6 hours, and we were given meal vouchers. I love Dubai airport, it is like a huge shopping mall for you to spend your moolah! haha. But we were more excited about meeting Shanaz and Abdullah in Germany…

From Dubai, we took another 7 hours flight to Frankfurt. We arrived at 9am German time and it was well… SEJUK!

Abdullah drove all the way from Wolfsburg to fetch us at the airport. Actually I do not know how to express our gratitude to Abdullah and Shanaz because they treat us like VIP throughout the trip… Thank you again guys!!

From Frankfurt to Wolfsburg we feast our eyes with terrific early spring view of Germany. We see endless fields raps (rapeseed or canola plants) with the brightest yellow flowers. The seeds of these flowers are processed into cooking oil and even biodiesel. Shanaz uses it in her kitchen and I think it taste very good. Among the yellow fields dotted with bright green trees are gigantic power windmills, standing tall and strong. Miki said "Hey, that's a transformer!" Haha! And later he remembers that he saw it in "Real Steel". I think it was shown for about 3 seconds in the beginning of the movie and somehow Miki can recall it. Macam-macam lah Miki!

From the fast moving car that Abdullah was driving, we also see these gorgeous German village that reminds me of these images I made inside my head while reading Enid Blyton or some fairy tales books when I was a child…

On our way from Frankfurt to Wolfsburg, we stopped at a restaurant called MAXI, because I was extremely kebulur. Although Shanaz was waiting at home and she was cooking, I still need to eat something LOL. It is my first meal in the Europe. I had fish with vegetables and potatoes. Miki had fries with mayo. Rafa had baby food supplied by Emirates. Azman tak lalu makan langsung. LOL.

Miki hadn't meet Cik Abi (that's what he calls him) for a long time but he has always been his favorite. Cik Abi is my best friend, katanya… And throughout the entire 2 weeks, Abi patiently put up with Miki's level of annoyingness that is beyond belief! LOL… See even Rafa loves Cik Abi!

This is our first family pic in Europe. We hadn't take a shower in 24 hours. LOL!

My first meal in Germany. It is delicious… I wish I know they make that vege salad.

Rafa's first food in the Europe… Farley's ada tulisan jawi… haha

I am very impressed with the restaurant. I don't know if it is a fancy restaurant or not… but it is just situated along the highway and near a petrol station. But the set up, the decor, the service is very good. The interior of the restaurant is something like what we used to have in Dave's Deli in Malaysia, only 10 times nicer and grander. They have activity sheet and color pencil for the kids, kalau kat Malaysia we only get this treatment in expensive restaurant. Restaurant sebelah highway kat Malaysia bagi apa? Muka waitress pun macam cuka. Hmmm… the Maxi's waitresses, although didn't speak English but still friendly and helpful.

So my first impression of the Germans? (Actually the first German I met was of course Abdullah lah! Masa dia berdating dengan adik aku haha!) Very nice people! I loike…